Dear Brian;
On Jul 21, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-07-19 04:21, Ned Freed wrote:
Marshall,
It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact
mistaken,
but I never said that we have rules that *prevent*
teleconferencing. To
elaborate, my understanding is that the rules for teleconferencing
are
governed by the rules for interim meetings, which require
something like
one month's advance notice plus attendance requirements at the
previous
IETF, and a minimum period of time between meetings. I regret I
can't
locate the citation right now. I also think AD approval is
required.
And the reason I think all of these things is that we came close to
having an appeal on the matter in one of the groups in which I am
active.
What I would suggest is that f2f requirement be eliminated, that the
notice periods be reduced to two weeks, and that AD approval not be
required.
+1
I don't think f2f meetings have ever been compulsory, have they?
There have certainly been WGs that have avoided them once the
work was well started.
I agree that 2 weeks notice is usually enough for any form of
teleconference, but some people may find it hard to reschedule
things, so more notice is always better. 4 weeks is an absolute
minimum for a meeting requiring travel.
My personal feeling is that, if the IETF wants to routinely use
videoconferencing or
telepresence to further its work, a substantial and continuing effort
will be needed to
make it happen in a reliable, effective and robust fashion. Generally,
with the IETF even
a conference bridge is planned late in the process; my experience with
teleconferencing and telepresence is that it needs to be planned in
from the start and
may be expensive to set up and run, although there should be larger
savings in the avoidance of the
time and expense required for travel.
I would be glad to participate in any "IETF telepresence" BOF, bar or
otherwise.
Regards
Marshall
I guess the AD approval for f2f interim meetings was put in place
to allow for a check that the general open-access requirements
are being met, and to ensure that the AD can actually attend
the meeting personally. If that became a WG chair responsibility,
there would need to be a clear way for people to object, which
would end up as an appeal to the AD anyway.
I will also note that telling people they cannot meet to discuss
things is
about as effective as telling water it cannot flow downhill. In
practice
what
often happens is that some small and highly motivated subset meets
and
discusses things privately, rules be damned.
I think we all know that such small discussions are often the source
of
breakthroughs. afaik that has never been forbidden, but by definition
such a discussion cannot claim to define WG consensus.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf